No easy answers in this social crisis

Last updated at 08:32 09 February 2007

Some may find it startling that the Equal Opportunities Commission admits that the growing number of working mothers is imposing immense strains on family life, in a social revolution that has deeply serious implications for society.

That is, of course, the simple truth of the matter. But in this complex area there are no easy answers.

Countless intelligent, educated women want and need a professional career. Good luck to them. Equally, many mothers have no choice but to find employment to provide for their families.

Of course they should be helped. More daycare . . . flexible hours . . . more men staying at home with children. . . there is much to commend in the EOC's solutions.

Yet don't we need to go further, when there is compelling evidence that many young children suffer if they aren't cared for by a full-time parent, male or female?

Yes, let's help working mothers. But shouldn't we also help those who wish to care for children at home? Is it right that the tax and benefits system is skewed against couples with children? Or that there is no fiscal incentive for families to stay together?

One thing is certain. We need to do much more to encourage family stability. The findings of the EOC should be the beginning of a national debate.

Paying over the odds

One day, three telling examples of how major companies seem blithely indifferent to the public they are supposed to serve.

First, British Gas proudly announces it is cutting prices by 17 per cent. But the company racked up huge profits by failing to cut bills while the wholesale cost of gas plummeted by 50 per cent. So that cut leaves it with a handsome windfall, while customers still pay too much.

Meanwhile, travellers on British Airways face charges of up to £240 a bag, if they check in more than one item of luggage. A more effective way of alienating passengers - particularly the elderly, who find it easier to split the load between two bags - would be hard to imagine.

And what about the banks and building societies? These institutions take advantage of hard-pressed householders, by ramping up arrangement fees for fixed-rate mortgages.

But then, we shouldn't be surprised. In a nation conditioned never to complain, consumerism has never truly taken hold. Sadly, we have grown used to paying over the odds. Whatever happened to the old-fashioned idea that the customer is king?

Daring to be bold

At last. From a party that once promised (and failed) to 'think the unthinkable' on welfare comes a genuinely radical intervention.

In a huge departure from Labour philosophy, former Home Secretary Charles Clarke suggests schools and hospitals should introduce fees to fund the growing demand for public services.

And while some may suspect he is just making a pitch - somewhat implausibly - for the Labour leadership, his proposal underlines the uncomfortable truth: present policies just aren't working.

Our educational performance is disappointing. Improvements in health care don't begin to match the extra billions poured in. The system is still so flawed that 40 per cent of GPs would rather be treated privately than rely on the NHS.

Whether Mr Clarke has the answer may be open to question. He seems to be suggesting fees on top of very high taxes, which could simply lead to throwing good money after bad without any significant improvement in efficiency.

But at least he recognises the problem and is willing to suggest solutions. How sad that so few politicians - including the timid Tories - dare even to try.